Leaderboard

Yes I think we all feel sympathy for this couple, they are in a horrible situation. But at the same time I don't agree that BWML have acted in a way that could not have been predicted or was not reasonable or not in keeping with how any other marina operator could be expected to behave. It is unfair, but so is life.

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery.” ― Charles Dickens, David Copperfield As usual, Mr Dickens hit the nail on the head. I would love to live in the Cotswolds, in a picture book cottage, but using the above formula, I would soon be in deep financial doo. So, I can only live in a place that I can afford. Market forces dictate this, no matter whom owns the space I desire.

I don't have ferrets on my boat, but a few years ago I did seriously look into keeping ferrets after getting to know two awesome ones in a practice I worked in. I have since wondered what pets I will have when my current cats expire (hopefully a long time in the future) and deduced that ferrets would be an eminently suitable boat pet, providing of course that you understand them and research them properly and ferret-proof the boat in the same way that you would a house. This is my opinion as a boater, ferret enthusiast and veterinary nurse.

John The document you have posted is quite interesting but, not surprisingly, it does pose more questions than it answers. The "meat" will be in the documentation to substantiate, or otherwise, the various debts incurred by QMP. particularly the £1.6 million to PLM.

Down here in the Somerset Levels? Not at all. They will still flood, as they have done for 300 years, and in the same places. Big Island, (Mucheleney), Isle Brewers, Fivehaed and other places will still be surrounded by water in a wet winter. However, instead of having to sit there waiting for the Tone and the Parrett levels to subside dredging will enable the rhines and drains to be pumped into the rivers, as they have been since the levels were first drained, and the water to flow to the sea instead of backing up and threatening more villages. N

ok send me your email address and we can do that If I were a leaseholder, I think I would be trying to rally the others to form a united front to challenge him personally in court, on the basis that personal promises and assurances were made that have not been met. Anyone need a witness?

Hi Rubblequeen, I used to have a portable gas heater aboard that was complementing our diesel run central heating system. I would only advise these if your boat is heavy enough and doesn't move much. Also only when accompanied with another form of heating as it would be crazy leaving it running during the night etc. Some of the advantages are that he heat with gas heaters is instant and it didn't prove too expensive to us. We used a 13kg butane bottle per month during the winter but as I am saying for us wasn't the single means of heating our boat. You need to have carbon monoxide detectors for your peace of mind but these anywhere where gas is used really, including your cooker (if you have got a gas one). We had the gas heater for 3 years and never experienced any problems or found it was particularly dangerous. Saying that though, if you have got all the arrangements in place for a stove, I would just replace what needs replacing and keeping that system as has proved to be great for boats. I hope this helps.

After following this saga for a while, it seems that most of the usual participants in the discussion have retreated to their default position. Either "BW/Crt/marinas are all heartless crooks", or the "if you don't like it, lump it" camps. Both sides see only one side, and dismiss the other side as "wishy washy", or "heartless". As I understand it, the marina owner BWML, have hiked the fees of their moorings, by what can be described as exorbitant percentages. Un ethical as this may be/seem, it is in the remit of a commercial enterprise, to levy their charges as they see fit. It is ultimately up to the customer to vote with their wallet, or their feet. That is, whether one likes it or not, how commerce works. That is not to say, that BWML is playing a level field. They know full well, that the current moorers can not simply untie their boats, and move to another marina. For somebody elsewhere in the country, from the comfort of their keyboard, to smugly say that there are plenty of places to moor a barge around the country, and that they should have thought of that when they bought the boat, is crass. Their are currently plenty of (narrow)boats for sale at what was a sensible price, but not selling. Many boats sell below their value, because the market is not buoyant, as it used to be. If you ever find yourself in the position of having to sell your boat, because you have to (not because you want to), lets hope that you don't get told "well, tough shit, you should have thought about that". (As an aside, the way things are going, I think that scenario may present itself to more people than you think, sooner than you think). You can't blame the moorers for trying to stop those mooring fees from increasing so massively, in such a short time. They followed the set out procedure, and after having lost, PAID up the fees as required. To be evicted with 28 days notice, is purely spiteful vindictiveness. Crt incidentally, have nothing to do with this, since BWML run the marina. And no, Crt has no social obligation to take care of moorers. But we may realistically expect that Crt, whether as a 'charity', or custodian of the canals, does not behave as a malicious landlord, nor lets it marina subsidiary behave as such.

Nigel, thanks for your contribution, informative as always. I would be very interested in your thoughts about what the judge was saying concerning "place", and would like to see his actual words. I believe the current definition of place is actually pretty good so was surprised about what he said. Like one or two others I am concerned that all this might ultimately lead to CaRT seeking new legislation which might not be in the best interests of continuous cruisers, so am in the camp that would like to see the uncertainty about the current rules resolved once and for all, and then honest and decent enforcement of the rules, plus a reasonable means for people to live on boats and remain within a relatively small area when they need to. Is that too much to ask?????? .............Dave.

I'd like one of these: Very friendly, they love water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara

If you want a swan it's not allowed to be 1 of our bog standard swans (mute swan? which definitely arent mute, sound more like pigs or snakes half the time) cuz they belong to the Queen (apart from a few which belong to some organisation somewhere) so it would need to be 1 of them foreign ones that visit, probably a law against that as well seeing as they are wild, & I wouldnt have thought they'd make a suitable pet. If it's a trad stern how about a cage in the back above the engine, put it on the roof when cruising, bung up the gaps in winter so it isnt too cold.

Similar to many other charities. Just because BWML is owned by aCharity does not give it charitable aims or status. So can we all please stop knocking CRT. In this case since it is a non charitable company, BWML, that is the marina operator in question

I think it's quite simple, you just don't like the idea of CCing in it's present form. Your then digging for the slightest piece of info to justify your dislike, and then interpreting it to suit your agenda. The legislation is simple enough, until fools attempt to make their own interpretation of it, (that applies to all sides).

Difficult to comment on specific cases but one thing is clear to me. The "individual giving manager" and his team are going to continue to have difficulties getting the general public and boaters to become friends and to be chugged when the charity has bad publicity on a month by month basis. CRT need to be free to enforce regulations but they must also be aware of The need to manage the PR and social issues that are associated with cases like these. This is why I have been advocating for a welfare manager who can step in and try and ensure that the relevant agencies are engaged at an early stage. It may not effect the end result but could potentially ensure that some support is available. There is a growing number of continuous cruisers and an ageing boater population so the need is likely to increase.

Are these sealed batteries or do they have caps on? Assuming they have caps.... Check level in every cell and top up as required Charge for a long long time (several days) Buy a hydrometer and check specific gravity in every cell and then report back. If you need new ones then Do NOT buy Trojans or similar, just get the cheapest you can find, you need to get a bit better at looking after batteries before you can trust yourself with expensive ones! ............Dave.

I mentioned the Ombudsman case as you were referring to it and it was the wrong one. If you start with the wrong information you will inevitably reach the wrong conclusion. I will set it out line by line as you did: Level 1 Complaint sent to BWML - Rejected Level 2 Complaint sent to BW (CRT did not exist when this started) - Offer made regarding residential licence. Remaining issues rejected Level 3 Complaint sent to Ombudsman - BWML prevented from changing contracts mid term. Ombudsman advised that widebeam issue would need to be determined by a court. Small Claims Court Case - Pre hearing judge determined that a full day was required - At the actual hearing the Judge declared that he would be unable to determine the status of the marina re: Inland or Coastal, that would require a higher court. The Judge ruled in BWML's favour and that would have been the end of it had BWML not decided to issue an eviction notice. At which point do you feel Rod was being vexatious? Andy

If I might return to the topic of Nicks court case? A point no one has yet made is that we appear to have here a legal system that is working in no ones interest but its own. Judge1 tells Nick he has to take his argument to a higher court to get clarification, but when he gets there judge2 says this is wrong and he will not provide clarification due to a legal technicality. So Nick has spent a lot of his time and money on this and is probably now bankrupt. CaRT have spent their time and OUR money on this and can't get it back from Nick cus he is bankrupt. But worse, although judge2 would not provide a legal judgement he chose to make an informal judgement, even without hearing all the evidence. (would be contempt of court if I did that?) . His statement effectively says that CaRTs current guidance is rubbish making it very hard for CaRT to manage the canals. This is in no ones interest at all Only way forward is for someone else (or Nick) to repeat this whole thing after getting into the enforcement process, or for CaRT to go to an even higher court (parliament) to get new laws. money money money!!!! And a couple more points... Is it really true that a law can only be challenged by someone directly ""suffering" from that law? I thought in our free country that anyone (with money) could challenge a law on principle ....that they believed that law to be bad. and can a very general word like "place" really be used only in a single context within a document?. I fully understand that a "place" like a mooring to keep a boat is very different to a place (like a parish) where I can visit for 14 days. CaRT explain this very well. I understand a pub is a "place" to buy beer and a skool is a "place" to get ejucated and I don't confuse these places with a place to park a boat! How can a senior judge get so confused???? ...............Davel

This might be interesting to you: http://www.youreko.com/en-gb/#!/products/fridge-freezers/show-energy-costs-for/10-years/sort-by/most-efficient/page-1

As you say, the guidance has been changed by previous court cases which would surely imply that the judges have not used it as the criteria of satisfying the board.

What does than mean, Sue? Are you trying to say BWML have tried to charge these people more that their (BWML's) announced new pricing? Or simply that the tariff, (particularly with a significantly increased "widebeam" surcharge), has gone up much more than (say) the average that CRT have increased long-term towpath moorings? If the former, you seem to be disagreeing with the Ombudsman, so can you present any evidence? If the latter, then surely that is just the way the business operates? When I was in a marina the owner always added a price increase every year that well outstripped inflation. I had the choice to keep paying it, or get out. Had I been old and infirm, (as some who moored there were), I would still have had the same choice. It's tough, I know, but the market is always going to mean that if you choose to moor in a fully serviced London marina with a big wide beam boat, it is not going to be cheap. It appears that in this case they were given a year's grace of not having to pay the hiked fee, but have stayed there and hoped to get it overturned. If Ombusman says "no" and courts say "no", they are probably on a loser.

An old type car sealed beam headlamp unit make really excellent boat headlamps with a nice wide spread of light. Mounted upside down and fitted with a dip switch at the helm position, by dipping the switch the beam will be directed upwards for tunnels and main beam 'down' for travelling in the open at night. The unit could be mounted in a nice box and mounted on the front bulkhead or roof.

Richard

I'm sure Tree is absolutely adorable in real life...she comes across as a great character and someone who I hope to meet up with at some point! However, her style of posting leaves a little bit to be desired and she makes the reading of her posts more difficult than it ought to be. No offence meant but the constant "moi" is bloody annoying! "I" or "me" would be more appropriate...I really, really don't want to put a valued member on "block" but I know I'm not the only forum member who feels this way.... Sorry Tree, but until you say "me" or "I" instead of that bloody annoying "moi" I'm going to have to opt out of viewing your posts! Janet